Are the new freesync LCDs any good as a CRT replacement?

[xeos]

I used to do vision science for a living, and we swore by CRTS even as recently as a couple years ago, do to the low lag, low persistence, adjustable refresh rate, etc. I can remember doing some early VR stuff with shutter glasses at 200hz. Turns out that red phosphors decay faster than blue or green, and at 200hz you could really see ghosting unless you only used red stimuli! 4 years ago when I last had a job we never touched LCDs because they couldn't come close to CRTs, and since then I haven't followed the issue at all so I'm wondering if the input lag and blur really are big issues, at least for idle hobbyists like myself.

now I'm a stay at home dad so my budget isn't what it used to be For retro gaming I still have an old Sony trinitron CRT tv, which looks so much better than the rather expensive iScan VP50 I bought a few years back. Can't fit a CRT everywhere, and at least the VP50 looks decent. I tend to use it in BOB mode, which is kind of disappointing given all the fancy hardware in the VP50 that I'm completely not using.

This is actually a question about PC LCDs though. For PC gaming I use an LCD just like everybody else. It's an old one, with horrendous lag; 60ms by the old stopwatch cloned on a CRT method. Gotta upgrade from that. Unfortunately I need IPS-level viewing angles, so the fancy 144hz TN panels are out of the question.

I'm looking at the Dell SE2717HR, which is 75hz max refresh rate, and freesync compatible. No good reviews of input lag though. Tom's hardware says the lag is actually pretty bad, on the order of 60ms from button push to pixel change on the screen, but their lag number are always hugely higher than more respectable sites like prad.de (gotta love google's auto-translate).

Or if I go with a cheap option that prad.de has actually reviewed I end up with ASUS VC279H, which is only 60hz, but according to their review only 12ms of lag and very little motion blur.

So I guess my question is, if I'm not going to spend the cash for 144hz, is any 75hz freesync monitor going to be about the same, with lag on the order of 10-20ms, or is it worth going with an older but carefully characterized monitor like the VC279H?

[bobrocks95]

Can't offer much, but there are some non-TN 144Hz Freesync monitors out there. I'm using a Samsung C24FG70 which is a 144Hz VA screen. Not quite IPS viewing angles, but definitely better than TN. It has some slow pixel transitions in certain colors though...

A quick glance at AMD's website shows a few 144Hz IPS displays you could look into. The LG 34UC79G-B is a 21:9 1080p 144Hz IPS (lots of letters and numbers there huh), I'd imagine there's a couple 16:9?

[ZellSF]

For PC gaming I think both high refresh rate and variable refresh rate are essential.

Personally I wouldn't go below 120hz (there are 144hz IPS FreeSync displays), especially not with FreeSync since low refresh rate FreeSync monitors have a pretty limited range where FreeSync actually works (48-75hz for 75hz monitors).

That said, 75hz FreeSync is still a lot better than 60hz without any variable sync technology.

I'm going to guess most FreeSync monitors have less than 20ms lag, but I'm not sure. It's not like G-Sync where there's pretty standardized hardware.

[orange808]

Increasing the refresh rate is the only thing you can do to fight ugly sample and hold blur when you're using freesync, so you need to get the 144Hz display.

Unfortunately, this will put a pinch on your budget, because you won't get smooth and clear motion without an RX Vega 64. Frame rate dips will create more persistence. Even at 144Hz, it won't match the beauty of a PC CRT at 75Hz.

Don't expect to get motion clarity from emulators with an LCD monitor. 60Hz will look like crap no matter what you do.

For emulators, you can and should force variable refresh with a good CRT monitor.

[orange808]

For PC gaming I think both high refresh rate and variable refresh rate are essential.

Personally I wouldn't go below 120hz (there are 144hz IPS FreeSync displays), especially not with FreeSync since low refresh rate FreeSync monitors have a pretty limited range where FreeSync actually works (48-75hz for 75hz monitors).

That said, 75hz FreeSync is still a lot better than 60hz without any variable sync technology.

I'm going to guess most FreeSync monitors have less than 20ms lag, but I'm not sure. It's not like G-Sync where there's pretty standardized hardware.

Huh?

Manufacturers pay nVidia and install a DRM box in the display to prevent "other" video cards from using adaptive refresh.

nVidia will take money from anyone. There's no standard. They don't care.

The only standard is their proprietary lock down on a very simple technology.

[ZellSF]

For PC gaming I think both high refresh rate and variable refresh rate are essential.

Personally I wouldn't go below 120hz (there are 144hz IPS FreeSync displays), especially not with FreeSync since low refresh rate FreeSync monitors have a pretty limited range where FreeSync actually works (48-75hz for 75hz monitors).

That said, 75hz FreeSync is still a lot better than 60hz without any variable sync technology.

I'm going to guess most FreeSync monitors have less than 20ms lag, but I'm not sure. It's not like G-Sync where there's pretty standardized hardware.

Huh?

Manufacturers pay nVidia and install a DRM box in the display to prevent "other" video cards from using adaptive refresh.

nVidia will take money from anyone. There's no standard. They don't care.

The only standard is their proprietary lock down on a very simple technology.

What I meant was, one G-Sync monitor will not have very different internal processing to another, because that's standardized in the G-Sync module. Whereas in FreeSync, manufacturers are free to implement it however they want, hence larger variations in quality factors.

[orange808]

What I meant was, one G-Sync monitor will not have very different internal processing to another, because that's standardized in the G-Sync module. Whereas in FreeSync, manufacturers are free to implement it however they want, hence larger variations in quality factors.

Agreed.

AMD seems to have acknowledged the issue with Freesync 2. The name is a bit deceiving, but they definitely did need to raise the bar.

I apologise for bring grumpy about nVidia, but their walled garden crap bugs me. Gsync is an unnecessary hassle.

Funny story, the same company that once cried and whined about getting sued for writing drivers to run 3dfx's ridiculous walled garden graphics API, is now doing the same thing with variable refresh.

"We made this thing for no good reason; you have to use it, because we said so."

[Xyga]

Funny because I'd call G-Sync hassle-free compared to the absolute mess that FreeSync is on the hardware compatibility and drivers/bios side.
nVidia and partners clearly overprice their branded hardware, but at least it works.
AMD though? the percentage of customers who've confusedly bought the wrong hardware not realizing they couldn't use FreeSync with it is unknown, but I suspect ridiculously high to the point it wouldn't be exaggerated to call it a partial scam, or appallingly ill-managed.

As I've said before it's not that FreeSync is worse than G-Sync (and indeed 2 puts them on practically even grounds) but you get what you pay for, so if you go the AMD route you better watch out very closely what you're buying, and I mean every part, every step: GPU (or APU), mobo, monitor, bios and drivers, and triple-check, because one single mistake, something missing/wrong in the chain and you're fucked, no FreeSync for your money.
Also don't expect efficient support from AMD either, I've witnessed their helplessness and confusion. Users will also provide tons of wrong advice, this is the result of too many steps to watch and an unbelievable lack of serious documentation.
G-Sync is not without its own issues and the pricing's a joke, yes, but compared to FreeSync's chaos, it's defnitively the one I would call hassle-free.

[Fudoh]

I was totally suprised by the fact that Nvivia uses a FPGA on their recent HDR 4K Gsync modules (which apparently cost $500 for monitor manufacturers). This would hint at rather low numbers. Otherwise they'd invest into an ASIC design, wouldn't they ?

[Xyga]

That's a lot, but the G-Sync solutions prices in the end are still very high even with that. I suspect the reason for what sounds like expensive over-engineering is to justify premium perception and secure stable margins for both parties that aren't challenged by lower-end competition. This way they don't need to sell huge volumes, there's enough players with deep-enough pockets to be almost certain that every G-Sync branded product series will be a reasonable success, so in short G-Sync might have been consciously designed targeting the more financially able (or overspending, it's the same).
I'm only speculating of course, but that's one way of doing things and it sounds like them.
Anyway again fact remains for the user that in practice G-Sync = better product. Not meaning necessarily always performing better nor getting a better deal, just better product overall.
Personally if I was PC-gaming recent games I'd still consider G-Sync over FreeSync, even if that meant saving more or selling something to finance a setup.
Not gaming recent games and only needing variable refresh for simple emulation or old games (or even Xbone) I'd go FreeSync, minding very carefully how I build my setup.

[Fudoh]

I didn't mind the G-SYNC pricing of recent years, but the $2000 they ask for new 144Hz 4K screens (which have a fan by the way to cool down the FPGA) is kinda ridiculous.

[Keade]

Or if I go with a cheap option that prad.de has actually reviewed I end up with ASUS VC279H, which is only 60hz, but according to their review only 12ms of lag and very little motion blur.

12ms is nice to have, but if I understand correctly, that is the display lag value, which means it is but a part of the total lag of the entire chain (gamepad->computer->display->picture).
The total lag is higher and should also generally depend a lot on the framerate.
If you software can run at >60fps, that should always give you much lower total lag.

[ZellSF]

Or if I go with a cheap option that prad.de has actually reviewed I end up with ASUS VC279H, which is only 60hz, but according to their review only 12ms of lag and very little motion blur.

12ms is nice to have, but if I understand correctly, that is the display lag value, which means it is but a part of the total lag of the entire chain (gamepad->computer->display->picture).
The total lag is higher and should also generally depend a lot on the framerate.
If you software can run at >60fps, that should always give you much lower total lag.

When discussing display latency, gamepad and computer latency isn't figured in. That's the same regardless of which display you buy, it's not helpful information to know when deciding which display to buy.

And running software at much lower total lag is not guaranteed when running above 60 FPS at all. It heavily depends on how the game engine works. Running at higher framerates AND refresh rates however will always mean the next frame is closer (60hz means 16.6ms between pictures, 120hz there's only 8.3ms between frames). Though some of that might be lost in pixel response times and I'm guessing you're unlikely to notice the difference anyway.

[xeos]

Or if I go with a cheap option that prad.de has actually reviewed I end up with ASUS VC279H, which is only 60hz, but according to their review only 12ms of lag and very little motion blur.

12ms is nice to have, but if I understand correctly, that is the display lag value, which means it is but a part of the total lag of the entire chain (gamepad->computer->display->picture).
The total lag is higher and should also generally depend a lot on the framerate.
If you software can run at >60fps, that should always give you much lower total lag.

Yes. That number is the time between a signal on the HDMI cable (or whatever) and a fully formed image on the display. But since that's the only part the LCD can influence it is the most helpful number to use when choosing a display. The total lag is worth considering from another perspective, however, which is how much a few milliseconds difference on the display side will make in the total equation. Answer, not much. I care little for a 5ms difference.

On the other hand, in addition to my pc this display will also be used with my iscan VP50, another source of lag, so I really don't want to go with an LCD that adds 20 or 30 ms of lag on top of that.

[xeos]

I didn't mind the G-SYNC pricing of recent years, but the $2000 they ask for new 144Hz 4K screens (which have a fan by the way to cool down the FPGA) is kinda ridiculous.

Seems almost like they just want bragging rights that such displays exist at all. Or maybe to judge the market interest level?